Trial by media

[regis80]

How can this be allowed? Since when did media companies and talk shows become the authority on this? Let the police investigate ffs. And why would you go to journalists after so many years before the police? Equally why did media establishment hold on to these details for so many years?? How can you expect a fair trial?

[boinggazmic]

How can this be allowed? Since when did media companies and talk shows become the authority on this? Let the police investigate ffs. And why would you go to journalists after so many years before the police? Equally why did media establishment hold on to these details for so many years?? How can you expect a fair trial?

Totally agree Regis.while I despise the odious Russell Brand I can’t believe what’s going on in the media .talk shows ffs. He’s entitled to due process like any other..i Expect as if and when he’s charged then that will stop all this circus..problem is as you say damage will have been done and getting a fair trial will be a challenge.

[Omegstrat6]

How can this be allowed? Since when did media companies and talk shows become the authority on this? Let the police investigate ffs. And why would you go to journalists after so many years before the police? Equally why did media establishment hold on to these details for so many years?? How can you expect a fair trial?

I take it you are referring to the Brand case? I agree with you about "trial by media" but, sadly, whether it is by newspapers wanting to sell more copies through salacious headlines or people on social media stirring things up that horse has bolted now so no use trying to shut the stable door.

Just as individuals on social media will differ as to their agendas or "fairness" so will newspapers and mainstream online/tv news reporting. The hope is that when it comes to any trial that the jury is presented with all the evidence before making their decisions and so may not be swayed by media stories that only present certain elements of the case. As someone who has done many disciplinary and grievance meetings over the years I have seen how people do change their viewpoints when made aware of the bigger picture so generally have faith in this system.

As for alleged victims going to journalists now, rather than reporting incidents to the police at the time, in an ideal world, I agree with you but there are so many variables including feelings of guilt, shame or embarrassment, fear of reprisals by their abuser (normally more powerful than them) and, of course, lack of trust in the police or justice system. Sometimes it is only with time that victims might have the strength to confront traumatic events from their past.

Of course there may be some making false allegations in order to seek attention or to try and get money but these are surely a minority.

I certainly agree that the actions of some in the media have been pretty disgusting, including the hounding of individuals and cases like that of investigations into Cliff Richard amongst others have been totally out of order. There will always be that fine line between freedom of speech (including on social media or in the press and the policing of it) and, sadly, "fairness" doesn't always come into it but the media only publish what they think will sell so their readership is surely complicit themselves.

I do agree with you about media organizations not dealing with reported abuse allegations of their "stars" properly but this probably more reflects the culture of the times and similarly happened in many other organizations or businesses. Certainly not right, but the whole me-too movement has at least begun to open up that can of worms to try and correct things.

Anyhow, if you are referring to Brand, I have little sympathy for him not only because of his well documented past behaviour (even though this was generally accepted at the time with its "laddish" culture) but because he too seeks to manipulate people via his own online views.

[regis80]

I take it you are referring to the Brand case? I agree with you about "trial by media" but, sadly, whether it is by newspapers wanting to sell more copies through salacious headlines or people on social media stirring things up that horse has bolted now so no use trying to shut the stable door.

Just as individuals on social media will differ as to their agendas or "fairness" so will newspapers and mainstream online/tv news reporting. The hope is that when it comes to any trial that the jury is presented with all the evidence before making their decisions and so may not be swayed by media stories that only present certain elements of the case. As someone who has done many disciplinary and grievance meetings over the years I have seen how people do change their viewpoints when made aware of the bigger picture so generally have faith in this system.

As for alleged victims going to journalists now, rather than reporting incidents to the police at the time, in an ideal world, I agree with you but there are so many variables including feelings of guilt, shame or embarrassment, fear of reprisals by their abuser (normally more powerful than them) and, of course, lack of trust in the police or justice system. Sometimes it is only with time that victims might have the strength to confront traumatic events from their past.

Of course there may be some making false allegations in order to seek attention or to try and get money but these are surely a minority.

I certainly agree that the actions of some in the media have been pretty disgusting, including the hounding of individuals and cases like that of investigations into Cliff Richard amongst others have been totally out of order. There will always be that fine line between freedom of speech (including on social media or in the press and the policing of it) and, sadly, "fairness" doesn't always come into it but the media only publish what they think will sell so their readership is surely complicit themselves.

I do agree with you about media organizations not dealing with reported abuse allegations of their "stars" properly but this probably more reflects the culture of the times and similarly happened in many other organizations or businesses. Certainly not right, but the whole me-too movement has at least begun to open up that can of worms to try and correct things.

Anyhow, if you are referring to Brand, I have little sympathy for him not only because of his well documented past behaviour (even though this was generally accepted at the time with its "laddish" culture) but because he too seeks to manipulate people via his own online views.

I think the metoo movement since 2017 was an opportunity for these accusers to go to police - they’d have had the support. A crime is a crime, you go to the police not journalists first. If police don’t want to know, then it’s acceptable to go to the journalists? Is this not fair?

I remember Brand from the early days, I could not stand him. Agree with some of his content may come across he’s trying to manipulate - but the topics he covers and his passion against MSM are what people follow him for.
Just got me thinking as I type.. if he did something wrong all those years ago to those accusers while employed by say the BBC - knowing you were wrong and actions were incriminating- last thing you’d do is go against MSM and establishment. He’s done the complete opposite.

[Omegstrat6]

I think the metoo movement since 2017 was an opportunity for these accusers to go to police - they’d have had the support. A crime is a crime, you go to the police not journalists first. If police don’t want to know, then it’s acceptable to go to the journalists? Is this not fair?

I remember Brand from the early days, I could not stand him. Agree with some of his content may come across he’s trying to manipulate - but the topics he covers and his passion against MSM are what people follow him for.
Just got me thinking as I type.. if he did something wrong all those years ago to those accusers while employed by say the BBC - knowing you were wrong and actions were incriminating- last thing you’d do is go against MSM and establishment. He’s done the complete opposite.

Tend to agree with your first point, but maybe this is because the alleged victims still don't have trust in the police and feel "safer" speaking to a journalist who has already spoken to other victims of the same individual and appears to be doing something about it?

I think "investigative" journalism can still have an important role to play as it may delve into areas that others-including the police-might balk at for varying reasons. Corruption and abuses by influential and powerful people are some of the areas such such journalism can help expose . Obviously they want to break the story themselves first before handing any evidence they have collated to the police but larger media operations are still surely going to run any accusations it might make through their lawyers first before publishing/broadcasting. The problem is the media circus you are talking about that then ensues but human nature is that people love to gossip and speculate.

As for your second point, in one sense, in the normal run of things, I think you are right but Brand strikes me as a very narcissistic character and, as such, has a rather unshakeable belief in himself so that he almost thinks that he can get away with anything. I know hindsight is a great thing, but when you look back at old clips of Savile and Harris, for example, both make jokey comments about being caught. They dont, of course, specify for what they might be caught for but such comments later resonate given their crimes. Brand too has made similar indications. Innocent co-incidence? Possibly, but I doubt it.

[mickd1961]

I think this is a case of scores being settled by the media.

I believe they’ve had the ammunition for years but needed a few of these women to load the gun.

I said the other day that it was a bit rich that Channel 4 who launched his main stream career were the ones exposing him.

Katie Perry has openly admitted for years that’s she’s been keeping her powder dry on Brand and awaiting the right moment.

Her testimony could be devastating.

By the way, can anyone explain to me how he got the title of “comedian” please?

I’ve listened to multiple clips of him and I can honestly say I haven’t found one that’s even mildly amusing!

A case of The Emperor’s New Clothes…..all the luvvies and Left Wing Chattering Classes decide to put him on a pedestal 20 years ago and people started to force themselves to laugh for fear of being branded “uncool” if they didn’t.

[baggiematt]

Have you seen the bloke debate? He’s like a politician in that he says absolutely nothing, gives no answers but says popular responses in an articulate way. He’s clever, no doubt - a bit like Piers Morgan. No woman on their own would want to go up against him.

Without this investigation nothing would have happened. This was a way of assuring women that they weren’t alone, an assurance they wouldn’t have had going to the police.

The ‘elite’ either through richness, fame or both, who use their status to cause harm deserve everything they have coming to them IMO.

[regis80]

I think what should be the rule is those in vulnerable positions who allege a crime of this seriousness go to a women’s charity (one that’s specialism is looking after rape victims) if they can’t go to the police. At least it’s registered with them and not journalists. Is this not fair?
This charity can then take to police and hold them responsible for not doing anything.

With all this said.. the whole Brand thing from what people are saying is all a coordinated attempt to finish him off because he’s challenged the establishment on Ukraine, Covid etc. I thought we lived in a democracy with free speech. Seems like the thought police are doing their part.